CRM-M-43090 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 212 Ranju Devi State of Punjab and another CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 petitioner/complainant seeking cancellation of pre respondent No.2/accused by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide orders dated 09.08.2024 and 17.08.2024, in case arising out of FIR No. 50 dated 23.0 351(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Station Verka, District Amritsar. 2. petition are that t statement got recorded by the present petitioner/complainant Ranju Devi on 43090-2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ranju Devi Versus State of Punjab and another CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Ms. Tania Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Himani Arora, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No. 2/accused. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 483(3) of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 petitioner/complainant seeking cancellation of pre respondent No.2/accused by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, , vide orders dated 09.08.2024 and 17.08.2024, in case arising out of FIR No. 50 dated 23.07.2024, registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 281, 351(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Station Verka, District Amritsar. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement got recorded by the present petitioner/complainant Ranju Devi on IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-43090-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 08.07.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Ms. Tania Mahajan, Advocate Ms. Himani Arora, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No. 2/accused. This petition has been filed under Section 483(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner/complainant seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No.2/accused by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, , vide orders dated 09.08.2024 and 17.08.2024, in case arising out of 7.2024, registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 281, 351(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this he aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement got recorded by the present petitioner/complainant Ranju Devi on -1- 2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 08.07.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents Bharatiya by the arrest bail granted to respondent No.2/accused by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, , vide orders dated 09.08.2024 and 17.08.2024, in case arising out of 7.2024, registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 281, at Police Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this he aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement got recorded by the present petitioner/complainant Ranju Devi on MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.10 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43090 23.07.2024 alleging therein that respondent No.2/accused Vishal Kumar, along with his father Rajesh Kumar, used to reside in petitioner. On 21.07.2024, co petitioner and had also extended threats to family members of the petitioner while standing in the street. In the morning of 22.07.2024, respondent No. 2 along with his father had boarded their car bearing registration number PB EK-6565. Respondent No. 2 was driving the same. Upinder Kumar, husband of the petitioner, had asked the reason for hurling abuses on the previous day and on this, they started ext accused Rajesh Kumar and with intent to kill the husband of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 drove over his car upon Upinder Kumar and they fled away from the spot. Her husband was severely injured and was her statement, the present FIR was registered and investigation proceedings were initiated. Apprehending his arrest, respondent No. 2 moved an application for grant of pre Amritsar, vid and then vide order dated 17.08.2024, the order of interim bail was made absolute. Feeling aggrieved from those orders, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is wife of v 3. orders had been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar and benefit of pre that the eviden interrogation was not required. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 has been 43090-2024 (O&M) 23.07.2024 alleging therein that respondent No.2/accused Vishal Kumar, along with his father Rajesh Kumar, used to reside in petitioner. On 21.07.2024, co-accused Rajesh Kumar had hurled abuses to the petitioner and had also extended threats to family members of the petitioner while standing in the street. In the morning of 22.07.2024, respondent No. 2 long with his father had boarded their car bearing registration number PB 6565. Respondent No. 2 was driving the same. Upinder Kumar, husband of the petitioner, had asked the reason for hurling abuses on the previous day on this, they started extending threats to him and then on the asking of co accused Rajesh Kumar and with intent to kill the husband of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 drove over his car upon Upinder Kumar and they fled away from the spot. Her husband was severely injured and was her statement, the present FIR was registered and investigation proceedings were initiated. Apprehending his arrest, respondent No. 2 moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide order dated 09.08.2024, directed him to join the investigation and then vide order dated 17.08.2024, the order of interim bail was made absolute. Feeling aggrieved from those orders, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is wife of victim Upinder Kumar. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned orders had been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar and benefit of pre-arrest bail was granted to respondent No. 2 by observing that the evidence against him was of documentary nature and his custodial interrogation was not required. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 has been 23.07.2024 alleging therein that respondent No.2/accused Vishal Kumar, along with his father Rajesh Kumar, used to reside in the neighborhood of the accused Rajesh Kumar had hurled abuses to the petitioner and had also extended threats to family members of the petitioner while standing in the street. In the morning of 22.07.2024, respondent No. 2 long with his father had boarded their car bearing registration number PB 6565. Respondent No. 2 was driving the same. Upinder Kumar, husband of the petitioner, had asked the reason for hurling abuses on the previous day ending threats to him and then on the asking of co accused Rajesh Kumar and with intent to kill the husband of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 drove over his car upon Upinder Kumar and they fled away from the spot. Her husband was severely injured and was taken to hospital. On her statement, the present FIR was registered and investigation proceedings were initiated. Apprehending his arrest, respondent No. 2 moved an arrest bail. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, e order dated 09.08.2024, directed him to join the investigation and then vide order dated 17.08.2024, the order of interim bail was made absolute. Feeling aggrieved from those orders, the instant petition has been ictim Upinder Kumar. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned orders had been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar arrest bail was granted to respondent No. 2 by observing ce against him was of documentary nature and his custodial interrogation was not required. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 has been -2- 23.07.2024 alleging therein that respondent No.2/accused Vishal Kumar, the neighborhood of the accused Rajesh Kumar had hurled abuses to the petitioner and had also extended threats to family members of the petitioner while standing in the street. In the morning of 22.07.2024, respondent No. 2 long with his father had boarded their car bearing registration number PB-02- 6565. Respondent No. 2 was driving the same. Upinder Kumar, husband of the petitioner, had asked the reason for hurling abuses on the previous day ending threats to him and then on the asking of co- accused Rajesh Kumar and with intent to kill the husband of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 drove over his car upon Upinder Kumar and they fled away taken to hospital. On her statement, the present FIR was registered and investigation proceedings were initiated. Apprehending his arrest, respondent No. 2 moved an arrest bail. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, e order dated 09.08.2024, directed him to join the investigation and then vide order dated 17.08.2024, the order of interim bail was made absolute. Feeling aggrieved from those orders, the instant petition has been It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned orders had been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar arrest bail was granted to respondent No. 2 by observing ce against him was of documentary nature and his custodial interrogation was not required. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 has been MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.10 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43090 booked for commission of heinous crime of making attempt to murder the victim. He had intentionally run over the victi from the spot. The occurrence was even captured in the CCTV camera installed in the area and the footage contained in a the concerned Court also. However, while failing to consider the gravity of the offence, the possibility of respondent No. 2 tampering with the evidence and causing hindrance in the investigation, the Court concerned granted him the concession of pre of the petitioner h him in the incident. He has undergone number of surgeries and treatment. The impugned orders have caused miscarriage of justice. It is also argued that respondent No. 2 still has openly mocking the petitioner. He has also been making attempt to intimidate and pressurize the family of the petitioner. petition deserves to be allowed and the benefit of pre respondent No. 2 is liable to be withdrawn. 4. learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations, the benefit of pre liable to be withdrawn. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. his counsel that respondent No. 2 has never misused the concession of granted to him. There is no infirmity in the impugned orders granting pre 43090-2024 (O&M) booked for commission of heinous crime of making attempt to murder the victim. He had intentionally run over the victi from the spot. The occurrence was even captured in the CCTV camera installed in the area and the footage contained in a the concerned Court also. However, while failing to consider the gravity of the offence, the possibility of respondent No. 2 tampering with the evidence and causing hindrance in the investigation, the Court concerned granted him the concession of pre-arrest bail. It is further submitted that left leg of the husband of the petitioner has been amputated due to infection in the injury sustained by him in the incident. He has undergone number of surgeries and treatment. The impugned orders have caused miscarriage of justice. It is also argued that respondent No. 2 still has been issuing openly mocking the petitioner. He has also been making attempt to intimidate and pressurize the family of the petitioner. petition deserves to be allowed and the benefit of pre respondent No. 2 is liable to be withdrawn. Respondent No. 1-State has filed status report. It is argued by learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations, the benefit of pre-arrest bail g liable to be withdrawn. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be Respondent No. 2 has filed reply to the petition. It is argued by his counsel that respondent No. 2 has never misused the concession of granted to him. There is no infirmity in the impugned orders granting pre booked for commission of heinous crime of making attempt to murder the victim. He had intentionally run over the victim with his car and had escaped from the spot. The occurrence was even captured in the CCTV camera installed in the area and the footage contained in a compact disc was seen by the concerned Court also. However, while failing to consider the gravity of the offence, the possibility of respondent No. 2 tampering with the evidence and causing hindrance in the investigation, the Court concerned granted him the arrest bail. It is further submitted that left leg of the husband as been amputated due to infection in the injury sustained by him in the incident. He has undergone number of surgeries and is still under treatment. The impugned orders have caused miscarriage of justice. It is also been issuing threats to them has been openly mocking the petitioner. He has also been making attempt to intimidate and pressurize the family of the petitioner. It is, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the benefit of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 2 is liable to be withdrawn. State has filed status report. It is argued by learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab that keeping in view the gravity arrest bail granted to respondent No. 2 is liable to be withdrawn. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be Respondent No. 2 has filed reply to the petition. It is argued by his counsel that respondent No. 2 has never misused the concession of granted to him. There is no infirmity in the impugned orders granting pre -3- booked for commission of heinous crime of making attempt to murder the m with his car and had escaped from the spot. The occurrence was even captured in the CCTV camera was seen by the concerned Court also. However, while failing to consider the gravity of the offence, the possibility of respondent No. 2 tampering with the evidence and causing hindrance in the investigation, the Court concerned granted him the arrest bail. It is further submitted that left leg of the husband as been amputated due to infection in the injury sustained by still under treatment. The impugned orders have caused miscarriage of justice. It is also threats to them has been openly mocking the petitioner. He has also been making attempt to intimidate It is, therefore, urged that the bail granted to State has filed status report. It is argued by learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab that keeping in view the gravity ranted to respondent No. 2 is liable to be withdrawn. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be Respondent No. 2 has filed reply to the petition. It is argued by his counsel that respondent No. 2 has never misused the concession of bail granted to him. There is no infirmity in the impugned orders granting pre- MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.10 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43090 arrest bail to respondent No. 2. Hence, the dismissal of the petition is prayed for. 6. besides watching the video footage contained in the incident as well as the photographs of the victim showing his amputated left leg. 7. No.658 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.27 of 2022) titled as Mr. Mohammed Bhava and another that bail can always be revoked if the relevant material on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact have not been considered by the Lower Court. Where bail is granted in a mechanical manner, the order granting bail is liable to be set aside. Similar proposition of law had been laid down in Dataram Singh v. State of Utt Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan 5 SCC 296 be seen as to whether the benefit of No.2, is liable to be withdrawn and the bail is liable to be cancelled or not? Undisputedly, the well settled proposition of law is that once the benefit of bail is granted to an accused, the same should be cancelled only in overwhelming ci herein has sought cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2 by alleging that he has committed a grave offence and further that learned Additional Sessions Judge did not take into account the 43090-2024 (O&M) arrest bail to respondent No. 2. Hence, the dismissal of the petition is prayed The rival contentions of the parties have been heard at length, besides watching the video footage contained in the incident as well as the photographs of the victim showing his amputated left In a recent judgment dated 22. No.658 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.27 of 2022) titled as Mr. Mohammed Bhava and another, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that bail can always be revoked if the relevant material on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact have not been considered by the Lower Court. Where bail is granted in a mechanical manner, the order granting bail is liable to be set aside. Similar proposition of law had been laid down in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan 5 SCC 296. In view of the settled position of law as discussed above, it is to be seen as to whether the benefit of pre-arrest No.2, is liable to be withdrawn and the bail is liable to be cancelled or not? Undisputedly, the well settled proposition of law is that once the benefit of bail is granted to an accused, the same should be cancelled only in overwhelming circumstances and due to some cogent reasons. The petitioner herein has sought cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2 by alleging that he has committed a grave offence and further that learned Additional Sessions Judge did not take into account the arrest bail to respondent No. 2. Hence, the dismissal of the petition is prayed The rival contentions of the parties have been heard at length, besides watching the video footage contained in the compact disc regarding incident as well as the photographs of the victim showing his amputated left In a recent judgment dated 22.04.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.658 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.27 of 2022) titled as Imran v , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that bail can always be revoked if the relevant material on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact have not been considered by the Lower Court. Where bail is granted in a mechanical manner, the order granting bail is liable to be set aside. Similar proposition of law had been laid down in ar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22 and Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan, (2011) . In view of the settled position of law as discussed above, it is to arrest bail as granted to the respondent No.2, is liable to be withdrawn and the bail is liable to be cancelled or not? Undisputedly, the well settled proposition of law is that once the benefit of bail is granted to an accused, the same should be cancelled only in rcumstances and due to some cogent reasons. The petitioner herein has sought cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2 by alleging that he has committed a grave offence and further that learned Additional Sessions Judge did not take into account the gravity of the offence committed -4- arrest bail to respondent No. 2. Hence, the dismissal of the petition is prayed The rival contentions of the parties have been heard at length, regarding incident as well as the photographs of the victim showing his amputated left 04.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal Imran vs. , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that bail can always be revoked if the relevant material on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact have not been considered by the Lower Court. Where bail is granted in a mechanical manner, the order granting bail is liable to be set aside. Similar proposition of law had been laid down in Central , (2011) . In view of the settled position of law as discussed above, it is to the respondent No.2, is liable to be withdrawn and the bail is liable to be cancelled or not? Undisputedly, the well settled proposition of law is that once the benefit of bail is granted to an accused, the same should be cancelled only in rcumstances and due to some cogent reasons. The petitioner herein has sought cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2 by alleging that he has committed a grave offence and further that learned Additional gravity of the offence committed MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.10 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43090 by respondent No. 2 and other relevant materials. In my considered opinion, it will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 before proceeding further in the matter. The same under : 8. Additional Sessions Judge, Amrit 43090-2024 (O&M) by respondent No. 2 and other relevant materials. In my considered opinion, it will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 before proceeding further in the matter. The same “6. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant-accused and learned Additional PP for the State, I am of the considered view that the complainant has alleged that he was purposefully run over by the Innova car which was being driven by applicant resulting in serious injuries upon his person. Applicant has brought on record a Pen-drive which shows the occurrence. That from the same, it is clear that the complainant party had attacked the applicant. He was trying to drive t into one of the tyre of car being run over one of the complainant. That evidence against the applicant is documentary in nature, theretofore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. In these circumstances, before deciding this bail application on merits, it would be in the fitness of things that applicant join investigation which would be beneficial for further progress of investigation. As such, applicant directed to join investigati passing of this order by surrendering before the IO/SHO of Police Station Verka, Amritsar and in the event of arrest of the applicant-accused, such Arresting Officer is directed to release him on interim bail on his furnis the sum of Rs. 50,000/- to his satisfaction, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2)Cr.PC.” On a bare perusal of aforesaid order, it is reflected that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar observed that in the CCTV footage, the by respondent No. 2 and other relevant materials. In my considered opinion, it will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 before proceeding further in the matter. The same reads as “6. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused and learned Additional PP for the State, I am of the considered view that the complainant has alleged that he was purposefully run over by the Innova car being driven by applicant resulting in serious injuries upon his person. Applicant has brought on record a drive which shows the occurrence. That from the same, it is clear that the complainant party had attacked the applicant. He was trying to drive the car away resulting into one of the tyre of car being run over one of the complainant. That evidence against the applicant is documentary in nature, theretofore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. In these circumstances, iding this bail application on merits, it would be in the fitness of things that applicant-accused be directed to join investigation which would be beneficial for further progress of investigation. As such, applicant-accused is directed to join investigation within 6 days from the date of passing of this order by surrendering before the IO/SHO of Police Station Verka, Amritsar and in the event of arrest of accused, such Arresting Officer is directed to release him on interim bail on his furnishing bail bonds to - with one surety in the like amount to his satisfaction, subject to the conditions under Section On a bare perusal of aforesaid order, it is reflected that learned observed that in the CCTV footage, the -5- by respondent No. 2 and other relevant materials. In my considered opinion, it will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order reads as “6. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused and learned Additional PP for the State, I am of the considered view that the complainant has alleged that he was purposefully run over by the Innova car being driven by applicant resulting in serious injuries upon his person. Applicant has brought on record a drive which shows the occurrence. That from the same, it is clear that the complainant party had attacked the he car away resulting into one of the tyre of car being run over one of the complainant. That evidence against the applicant is documentary in nature, theretofore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. In these circumstances, iding this bail application on merits, it would be accused be directed to join investigation which would be beneficial for further accused is on within 6 days from the date of passing of this order by surrendering before the IO/SHO of Police Station Verka, Amritsar and in the event of arrest of accused, such Arresting Officer is directed to hing bail bonds to with one surety in the like amount to his satisfaction, subject to the conditions under Section On a bare perusal of aforesaid order, it is reflected that learned observed that in the CCTV footage, the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.10 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43090 complainant party had attacked upon respondent No. 2 and while he was trying to save himself by driving away his car, the same had run over the husband of the complainant. However, the observations so made clearly appear to be against the said video recording since on a perusal of the video recording contained in the compact disc shows that the car of respondent No. 2 dragged the victim and the same car can be seen leaving the spot. Learned Court concerned appears respondent No. 2 was documentary in nature and due that reason, his custodial interrogation was not required. It is apparent from the record that the left leg of the victim was amputated due to the injuries su was left at the spot by respondent No. 2 in injured condition for a while after the incident. From this, an inference that respondent No. 2 had intent to kill the victim and made an attempt to that effect can prima facie be draw well settled proposition of law that an accused does not become entitled to concession of pre interrogation is not required. Reference in this regard can be made to the authority cited as 2022 (4) RCR (Criminal) 977 even if custodial interrogation is not required be ground to grant anticipatory bail. 9. application for offence, the role of the person, likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation or tampering with th 43090-2024 (O&M) complainant party had attacked upon respondent No. 2 and while he was trying to save himself by driving away his car, the same had run over the husband of the complainant. However, the observations so made clearly appear to be against the said video recording since on a perusal of the video recording contained in the compact disc shows that the car of respondent No. 2 dragged the victim and the same car can be seen leaving the spot. Learned Court concerned appears to have wrongly observed that evidence against respondent No. 2 was documentary in nature and due that reason, his custodial interrogation was not required. It is apparent from the record that the left leg of the victim was amputated due to the injuries su was left at the spot by respondent No. 2 in injured condition for a while after the incident. From this, an inference that respondent No. 2 had intent to kill the victim and made an attempt to that effect can prima facie be draw well settled proposition of law that an accused does not become entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail as a matter of right, even if his custodial interrogation is not required. Reference in this regard can be made to the authority cited as Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C. K. and another : 2022 (4) RCR (Criminal) 977, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if custodial interrogation is not required be ground to grant anticipatory bail. It is also well settled proposition of law that while considering an application for grant of pre-arrest bail, the Court has to consider the nature of offence, the role of the person, likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation or tampering with the evidence (including intimidating witnesses complainant party had attacked upon respondent No. 2 and while he was trying to save himself by driving away his car, the same had run over the husband of the complainant. However, the observations so made clearly appear to be against the said video recording since on a perusal of the video recording contained in the compact disc shows that the car of respondent No. 2 dragged the victim and the same car can be seen leaving the spot. Learned to have wrongly observed that evidence against respondent No. 2 was documentary in nature and due that reason, his custodial interrogation was not required. It is apparent from the record that the left leg of the victim was amputated due to the injuries sustained in the incident. He was left at the spot by respondent No. 2 in injured condition for a while after the incident. From this, an inference that respondent No. 2 had intent to kill the victim and made an attempt to that effect can prima facie be drawn. It is well settled proposition of law that an accused does not become entitled to arrest bail as a matter of right, even if his custodial interrogation is not required. Reference in this regard can be made to the Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C. K. and another : , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot also well settled proposition of law that while considering an arrest bail, the Court has to consider the nature of offence, the role of the person, likelihood of his influencing the course of e evidence (including intimidating witnesses -6- complainant party had attacked upon respondent No. 2 and while he was trying to save himself by driving away his car, the same had run over the husband of the complainant. However, the observations so made clearly appear to be against the said video recording since on a perusal of the video recording contained in the compact disc shows that the car of respondent No. 2 dragged the victim and the same car can be seen leaving the spot. Learned to have wrongly observed that evidence against respondent No. 2 was documentary in nature and due that reason, his custodial interrogation was not required. It is apparent from the record that the left leg stained in the incident. He was left at the spot by respondent No. 2 in injured condition for a while after the incident. From this, an inference that respondent No. 2 had intent to kill n. It is well settled proposition of law that an accused does not become entitled to arrest bail as a matter of right, even if his custodial interrogation is not required. Reference in this regard can be made to the Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C. K. and another : , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that or necessitated, by itself, cannot also well settled proposition of law that while considering an arrest bail, the Court has to consider the nature of offence, the role of the person, likelihood of his influencing the course of e evidence (including intimidating witnesses MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.10 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43090 or likelihood of his absconding). Reference in this context may be made to Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 settled that an order for cancellation of bail can be passed i powers under Section 483(3) of BNSS, where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting into miscarriage of justice. Reference in this regard can be made to (2020) 2 SCC 743 cancellation of bail can be ordered in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the Court granting bail ignores relevant material indi the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. In view of this it is clear that an appellate or superior Courts can set aside the order granting bail, if the Court granting bail did not consider the relevant factors. 10. specific in nature. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant party was aggressor or that it had attacked the respondent No. 2 and that the victim was run over while respondent No view of grave nature of the allegations as levelled against respondent No. 2, in my considered opinion, a deeper and thorough investigation was required to be conducted in the matter, for which, custodial interrogation of is must. 43090-2024 (O&M) or likelihood of his absconding). Reference in this context may be made to Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 settled that an order for cancellation of bail can be passed i powers under Section 483(3) of BNSS, where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting into miscarriage of justice. Reference in this regard can be made to Myakala Dharmarajam v. The State of Telangana, (2020) 2 SCC 743, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the cancellation of bail can be ordered in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the Court bail ignores relevant material indi the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. In view of this it is clear that an appellate or superior Courts can set aside the order granting bail, if the Court granting bail did not consider the relevant factors. The allegations against respondent No. 2 are quite serious and specific in nature. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant party was aggressor or that it had attacked the respondent No. 2 and that the victim was run over while respondent No view of grave nature of the allegations as levelled against respondent No. 2, in my considered opinion, a deeper and thorough investigation was required to be conducted in the matter, for which, custodial interrogation of or likelihood of his absconding). Reference in this context may be made to Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1. It is also well settled that an order for cancellation of bail can be passed in exercise of powers under Section 483(3) of BNSS, where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting into miscarriage of justice. Reference in this Myakala Dharmarajam v. The State of Telangana, , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the cancellation of bail can be ordered in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the Court bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. In view of this position of law, it is clear that an appellate or superior Courts can set aside the order granting bail, if the Court granting bail did not consider the relevant factors. The allegations against respondent No. 2 are quite serious and specific in nature. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant party was aggressor or that it had attacked the respondent No. 2 and that the victim was run over while respondent No. 2 was trying to save himself. In view of grave nature of the allegations as levelled against respondent No. 2, in my considered opinion, a deeper and thorough investigation was required to be conducted in the matter, for which, custodial interrogation of the petitioner -7- or likelihood of his absconding). Reference in this context may be made to It is also well n exercise of powers under Section 483(3) of BNSS, where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting into miscarriage of justice. Reference in this Myakala Dharmarajam v. The State of Telangana, , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the cancellation of bail can be ordered in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the Court cating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions position of law, it is clear that an appellate or superior Courts can set aside the order granting The allegations against respondent No. 2 are quite serious and specific in nature. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant party was aggressor or that it had attacked the respondent No. 2 and that the . 2 was trying to save himself. In view of grave nature of the allegations as levelled against respondent No. 2, in my considered opinion, a deeper and thorough investigation was required to the petitioner MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.10 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43090 11. however, ignored this fact and also observed that evidence against respondent No. 2 was of documentary nature. In view of the discussion as made above, I am of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The impugned orders dated 17.08.2024 are hereby set aside. Consequently, the concession of pre bail granted to respondent No. 2 stands wi before the learned trial Court within a period of be at liberty to move an application for grant of regular bail. 12. for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 08.07.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 43090-2024 (O&M) Learned Additional Sessions, while passing the impugned order, however, ignored this fact and also observed that evidence against respondent No. 2 was of documentary nature. In view of the discussion as made above, I e considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The impugned orders dated 17.08.2024 are hereby set aside. Consequently, the concession of pre bail granted to respondent No. 2 stands wi before the learned trial Court within a period of be at liberty to move an application for grant of regular bail. It is made clear that the observations made herein above are only the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 08.07.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Learned Additional Sessions, while passing the impugned order, however, ignored this fact and also observed that evidence against respondent No. 2 was of documentary nature. In view of the discussion as made above, I e considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The impugned orders dated 09.08.2024 and 17.08.2024 are hereby set aside. Consequently, the concession of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 2 stands withdrawn. He is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of 15 days from today. He would be at liberty to move an application for grant of regular bail. It is made clear that the observations made herein above are only the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No -8- Learned Additional Sessions, while passing the impugned order, however, ignored this fact and also observed that evidence against respondent No. 2 was of documentary nature. In view of the discussion as made above, I e considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. 09.08.2024 and arrest thdrawn. He is directed to surrender days from today. He would It is made clear that the observations made herein above are only the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.10 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document